https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 --- Comment #16 from Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #13) > You can't see llvm34? (comment 11) Ugh, that should have read "You can't *use* llvm34?" (Since you mentioned that version in version 11.) (In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #15) > Actually, I already have an llvm3.3 package ready for a long time, which I > can rename to llvm33. I was more asking for your opinion about having > another versioned-LLVM package in Fedora, since anyway I'd need support to > get this review request accepted. I don't see any problem with having llvm33 in Fedora if it is needed. (llvm34 seems to be working just fine and I haven't had to update it.) > I don't need clang, and indeed I realized the build fails if I enable it in > 64-bit Rawhide (but not in other versions). Is that expected? I removed all the clang and other misc subpackaging from llvm34.spec which simplifies the packaging a lot. I think it is a lot more work to package the whole of llvm+clang etc as llvmXY. Does your current package actually build then? My personal recommendation would be to just "rebase" llvm33.spec off llvm34.spec - if you do that I am happy to help review it. I think that should just work (ie more or less just changing the version number etc should be enough.:) I appreciate this submission pre-dates llvm34, but nevertheless llvm34 is a newer version of llvm than llvm33 and I think it is better to keep the packaging of these two packages as close as possible to ease maintainence and avoid potential problems and extra work. :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review